Disaster and partial compensation

On Sep 13, 2:57?am, Mike wrote:
On 13 Sep, 00:54, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:





Mike wrote:
Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from
an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme
environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such
fish.

If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then
you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any
illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then
there would be no point in catching them either.

I'd rather fish for wild fish as opposed to stockers but fishing
for stockers is better than no fishing at all. And to say that
there's no point in catching fish which don't taste like wild
fish is just silly. There are many reasons to catch a fish that
have nothing whatsoever to do with how the fish tastes compared
to wild fish.

The one thing that strikes me about Mr. MacPherson's report is
how lucky I am to be an angler in North America.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ah well, as this is a serious and important subject, I will do my best
to enlighten you on the matter. In order to produce a 3lb stock
rainbow, at least ten pounds, even by extremely conservative
estimates, of wild marine protein is required. Other estimates and
independent studies place this figure much higher. This protein is
obtained by raping the seas, damaging ecosystems beyond hope of
recovery, and decimating the food chain. The result is still far
inferior, both genetically and in the small matter of taste, than any
wild fish.

So people who fish for "stockers" are financing the inevitable
collapse of the oceans. This is already quite far gone in many
regions.

So, "fishing for stockers", is most emphatically not better than no
fishing at all, indeed it contributes significantly to the demise of
wild fish. Which will actually eventually result in there being no
fishing at all, and a lot sooner than many people realise.. The
levels of fish meal being produced for various purposes, already
exceeds the ocean´s capacity to recover form such irresponsible
pillage, and is increasing exponentially, as more and more greedy
salmon and other marine farmers realise that they can make a very
great deal of money by destroying the environment, producing an
inferior result, and incidentally wiping out whole systems of
anadromous fish. Ably assisted by large numbers of blind, ignorant,
and often corrupt politicians, and anglers who fish for such stocked
fish.

The ten or so pounds of evil tasting, genetically inferior, more or
less tame, force fed muck, that Mr.McPherson dragged out of Farmoor,
and then soaked in Grand Marnier, likely cost about forty pounds of
marine protein. The fish meal/oil producer made money on it, the fish
breeder/rearer made money on it, the people who sold Mr.McPherson the
tickets made money on it, and Mr.McPherson still does not know what a
fish tastes like.

The losers were, Mr.Mc.Pherson, and the environment, which wont be
losing for much longer, as it simply can not sustain that level of
damage for long.

This is considerably exacerbated by the fact that despite ongoing
research, there is no substitute for the fish oil in raising and
feeding salmonoids and some other fish.

So it´s not just about the taste.

Mr. Asadi is quite correct, and I agree with him.

MC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"In order to produce a 3lb stock
rainbow, at least ten pounds, even by extremely conservative
estimates, of wild marine protein is required. "
Time to go back to google. There's a place not far from here that
makes ingredients for fish food. The fish are processed to make
fillets and the guts, feathers fins and tails are used to make "wild
marine protein". In addition to fish they process a lot of Dungeness
crab nearby and the left over parts of the crab are ground up and made
into fish food. Those crab shells along with shrimp shells contain
some strange artifical chemical that cause the flesh of trout to turn
red.